See how the fates their gifts alot

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
1

[From Rick Marken (990430.0730)]

"See how the fates, their gifts allot
For A is happy, B is not"
                         G & S, The Mikado
Me:

Suppose I have two kids, A and B. A wants to sit in her room
and read Chaucer; B wants to go out and party. Without asking
A and B what they want (it wouldn't matter to me anyway) I force
both to sit in their rooms and read Chaucer. Am I coercing B and
not coercing A?

i.kurtzer (990430.0000)

Yes.

Ok. Now you watch me tell both A and B to go sit in their
rooms and read Chaucer. You see both A and B instantly do
what they are told. How do you determine that I am coercing
B and not coercing A?

Unless you have a new argument I'm dropping this can of worms.

Why is it a can of worms? Seems like a straightforward discussion
of control to me.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

2

i.kurtzer (990430.1030)

[From Rick Marken (990430.0730)]

Why is it a can of worms? Seems like a straightforward discussion
of control to me.

Lay out your argument and stop trying to bait me. If it is a new
argument.
This was a can of worms
last summer. Would you like to repeat that exercise?

i.

3

[From Rick Marken (990430.0830)]

i.kurtzer (990430.1030)

Lay out your argument and stop trying to bait me.

I have no argument, only questions. I'm not "baiting"
you; I am trying to understand your point of view -- which
should be the same as mine since it is based on PCT. I'm
really trying to approach this without preconceptions (so
I am not baiting). I just want to see what you are thinking.

If it is a new argument. This was a can of worms
last summer. Would you like to repeat that exercise?

There is no need for this to be a "can of worms". We all
understand control theory; it should unite us in our
understanding of human behavior. The exercise last summer
was disappointing; but I think it occurred, to some extent,
because I (and maybe Bill too) was so surprised by some
of the things I was hearing. "Coercion" (control of behavior
by force or the credible threat thereof) seemed like a pretty
easily observed and explained control phenomenon but, apparently,
it's not.

Anyway, I don't think "coercion" needs to be PCT's dirty
little secret -- quietly kept in the basement so that one
PCT "faction" doesn't fight with another. I believe that
if we approach this calmly and scientifically -- and if
we _all_ (myself most emphatically included) try not to
harbor any hopes or expectations about what conclusions
we want to come to about coercion -- we should be able to
work out comfortable consensus.

If this seems reasonable, then maybe you could answer my
question from the previous post:

Now you watch me tell both A and B to go sit in their
rooms and read Chaucer. You see both A and B instantly do
what they are told. How do you determine that I am coercing
B and not coercing A?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

4

[From Bruce Gregory (990430.1138 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990430.0830)

There is no need for this to be a "can of worms". We all
understand control theory; it should unite us in our
understanding of human behavior. The exercise last summer
was disappointing; but I think it occurred, to some extent,
because I (and maybe Bill too) was so surprised by some
of the things I was hearing. "Coercion" (control of behavior
by force or the credible threat thereof) seemed like a pretty
easily observed and explained control phenomenon but, apparently,
it's not.

It seems that all social behavior is coerced according to this
definition. I am wearing clothes. If I removed them I would be
constrained by the Harvard police. Therefore I am being coerced to wear
clothes. Yes?

Bruce Gregory

5

[From Rick Marken (990430.0920)]

Me:

"Coercion" (control of behavior by force or the credible threat
thereof) seemed like a pretty easily observed and explained
control phenomenon but, apparently, it's not.

Bruce Gregory (990430.1138 EDT)]

···

It seems that all social behavior is coerced according to this
definition. I am wearing clothes. If I removed them I would be
constrained by the Harvard police. Therefore I am being coerced to wear
clothes. Yes?

Bruce Gregory

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

6

[From Bill Powers (990430.1208 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (990430.1138 EDT)--

It seems that all social behavior is coerced according to this
definition. I am wearing clothes. If I removed them I would be
constrained by the Harvard police. Therefore I am being coerced to wear
clothes. Yes?

I would say yes. But maybe there's another description that might lead to
less (inexplicable to me) resistance. I won't even propose a word for it.
Let's think about the other side of the coin. What do you call it when I
remove all options but one, so that if you try to do anything but what I
want, sufficient force is applied to you to prevent your effectively
choosing any other option?

For example, I might forbide you to leave your room. This removes all of
your options concerning where you might want to be. You won't experience
any forceful opposition to your efforts as long as you desire to stay in
your room. But if you decide you want to be somewhere else, I will force
you back into your room. What do you call that? This is like saying "You're
perfectly free to choose any behavior you want as long as it's what I want
you to do." Is that really freedom?

Best,

Bill P.

7

[From Kenny Kitzke (990430.1430EDT)]

<Rick Marken (990430.0730)>

<Ok. Now you watch me tell both A and B to go sit in their
rooms and read Chaucer. You see both A and B instantly do
what they are told. How do you determine that I am coercing
B and not coercing A?>

I don't and can't. Coercion is between you and A, and B. I would guess that
if neither showed any resistance to your command, there was no coercion. If
I really wanted to know if this interaction was coercive, I'd ask A and B
whether what they did was by their own willing volition or coerced by their
father as the head of their family.

The value of the concept of coercion by force in PCT is that it describes an
important exception to Behavior being the Control of Perception. Coercion is
where at least some aspect of one's behavior (not necessarily their
perceptions) is indeed controlled.

Having experienced coercion, there may be a moment of reorganization, whether
observable or not. But the memory of the coercion may for ever more engender
a reference for getting even and coerce back at the first opportunity.

If we define coercion to include the credible threat of force, rather than
the actual use of force, and is defined only by the coercer's behavior (so
that the coercee's purpose is irrelevant), then it seems that coercion is an
open loop system of stimulus response behavior of a person. My girls are not
reading Chaucer (stimulus), so I will make them read Chaucer in a corner
(response).

Kenny

8

i.kurtzer (990430.1500)

[From Bill Powers (990430.1208 MDT)]

Is that really freedom?

Is there ever freedom in PCT? I have never ran across it.

i.

9

[From Bill Powers (990430.1257 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990430.1430EDT)--

If we define coercion to include the credible threat of force, rather than
the actual use of force, and is defined only by the coercer's behavior (so
that the coercee's purpose is irrelevant), then it seems that coercion is an
open loop system of stimulus response behavior of a person. My girls are not
reading Chaucer (stimulus), so I will make them read Chaucer in a corner
(response).

... after which I will perceive them reading Chaucer, which is what I
intended to see (zero error, loop is closed).

If an onlooker then sees what is happening without knowing its history, he
or she will say "My, what well-behaved children. I wish mine had this kind
of interest in classical literature." The onlooker's mistake, of course, is
to think that both children have an interest in Chaucer just because both
of them are reading Chaucer. One of them does have an interest in reading
Chaucer (by the initial description of the situation). The other has only
an interest in avoiding pain and suffering. The onlooker sees no coercion
because nobody is actually applying any physical force at that time. But
coercion will quickly become manifest if _either_ child decides to do
something besides reading Chaucer. The coercive parent has closed off, by
the threat of force, all options other than those the parent wants to see.

To most parents, I would guess, this is simply the normal way to raise
children. Such parents do not perceive themselves as coercive; they
convince themselves that the child who is obedient because of a desire to
avoid having overwhelming physical force applied has "learned a lesson" and
has now been set on the right track. Parents who consistently and firmly
apply this kind of policy turn out the most violent and hate-filled
children in our society.

Best,

Bill P.

10

[From Rick Marken (990430.1230)]

Me:

Ok. Now you watch me tell both A and B to go sit in their
rooms and read Chaucer. You see both A and B instantly do
what they are told. How do you determine that I am coercing
B and not coercing A?>

Kenny Kitzke (990430.1430EDT) --

I don't and can't. Coercion is between you and A, and B.

So is your position that it is impossible for an observer
to determine whether one person is coercing another?

If I really wanted to know if this interaction was coercive,
I'd ask A and B whether what they did was by their own willing
volition or coerced by their father as the head of their family.

Ok. So observers _can_ tell by asking the possible coercees whether
they wanted to do what they are being told to do? I agree that
this is a good way to distinguish coercee's (like B) from non-
coercee's (like A) (assuming they have no reason to fear telling
the truth).

But what would you say that _I_ am doing in this scenario. I
have forced A to do what she _wants_ to do anyway; so I have
_not_ coerced A (by your definition of coercion) _and_ I have
forced B to do what she did _not_ want to do; so I have, indeed,
coerced B (again, by your definition of coercion). I am wondering
how you would characterize _my_ behavior with respect to A and
B; was I being coercive? partially coercive? helpful? half-helpful?
a good parent? accidentally coercive? I think PCT can help us
answer this question.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

11

i.kurtzer (990430.1530)

[From Rick Marken (990430.0830)]

> Now you watch me tell both A and B to go sit in their
> rooms and read Chaucer. You see both A and B instantly do
> what they are told. How do you determine that I am coercing
> B and not coercing A?

I would first have to confirm that A and B are doing what they are
told. This is rarely obvious. If it turns out so, then I would say I
still don't know because I define as a difference in loop gain and
references, and I don't know what there references areor really what is
yours--and what is your or their loop gain for those references. It
would seem strange to say the weaker one coerces the stronger so
intention is not sufficient. But intention is about a controlled
variable and what is the CV is not always so easy to see. I suspect
that many cases where it looks AS IF one person is overwhelming the
other is illusionary. As illusory as the behavioral illusion.
Since we are asking questions. If A wants to keep the knot of her
rubber band above a quarter and you pull on the other end of the rubber
band and A moves her end by a certain amount that you wanted to
see--maybe it traces out "I'm a silly girl"--are you coercing her? What
if she notices this and wants you to trace out "I'm a goofy boy" and is
able to get you hand to follow that path. Now are you both coercing
each other?

i.

12

there were some typos in the original..here's a fix-up

Isaac Kurtzer wrote:

i.kurtzer (990430.1530)

> [From Rick Marken (990430.0830)]
>
>
> > Now you watch me tell both A and B to go sit in their
> > rooms and read Chaucer. You see both A and B instantly do
> > what they are told. How do you determine that I am coercing
> > B and not coercing A?
>

revised

I would first have to confirm that A and B are doing what they are
told. This is rarely obvious. If it turns out so, then I would say I
still don't know because I posit that coersion requires a difference in
loop gain and
references, and I don't know what their references are---or even what is
yours--and what is your and their loop gain for those references.
Intention is not sufficient. A lil' bug wishing to coerce me to run for
president and utterly failing is a bug that has not coerced me.

Intention is about controlled
variables and what is the CV is not always so easy to see. I suspect
that many cases where it looks AS IF one person is overwhelming the
other is illusionary. As illusory as the behavioral illusion.

Since we are asking questions. If A wants to keep the knot of her
rubber band above a quarter and you pull on the other end of the rubber
band and A moves her end by a certain amount that you wanted to
see--maybe it traces out "I'm a silly girl"--are you coercing her? What
if she notices this and wants you to trace out "I'm a goofy boy" and is
able to get you hand to follow that path. Now are you both coercing
each other?

i.

slightly revised

i.

13

[From Bill Powers (990430.1348 MDT)]

i.kurtzer (990430.1500)

Is there ever freedom in PCT? I have never ran across it.

It's not a technical term in PCT, if that's what you mean. My idea of
freedom is not being subject to coercion by other people.

Best,

Bill P.

14

[From Rick Marken (990430.1400)]

i.kurtzer (990430.1530)--

Since we are asking questions. If A wants to keep the knot of
her rubber band above a quarter and you pull on the other end
of the rubber band and A moves her end by a certain amount that
you wanted to see--maybe it traces out "I'm a silly girl"--are
you coercing her?

I can't tell based on just this. Remember, to me, coercion is
control of behavior by force or the credible threat thereof.
In this scenario I am certainly controlling behavior (making
the girl trace out "I'm a silly girl") but it's not clear that
I am coercing her (willing to use force). You could test this
by having the girl stop tracing out "I'm a silly girl". If I
then forced her to continue that would be evidence that I was
coercing her all along.

What if she notices this and wants you to trace out "I'm a goofy
boy" and is able to get you hand to follow that path. Now are
you both coercing each other?

No. Two people cannot coerce each other. At least, they can't
if "coercion" refers to "control of behavior by force or the
credible threat thereof".

Marc Abrams (990430.1347) --

I think it's kind of ironic that PCT stresses the importance
of what our internal goals are and here we are spending oodles
of time trying to figure out what _someone_ else is trying to
control for :slight_smile:

I don't think it's ironic; I think it's very _important_ when
what someone else wants to control for (forcibly) is _our_
behavior because then that person is depriving us of the ability
to do what _is_ important for our mental health and, possibly,
our very survival: control our perceptions relative to our own
internally specified goals.

Bill Powers (990430.1257 MDT) mentioned one reason why I think
it's important to try to figure out what someone (like a parent)
is trying to control for when what they are trying to
control for is the behavior another (typically weaker) person.
Bill said:

Parents who consistently and firmly apply this kind of policy
turn out the most violent and hate-filled children in our society.

I think it's important to understand what coercion is because,
according to PCT (I think), coercion exists and it is often
not good for the (mental) health of its victims.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

15

i.kurtzer (990430.1400)

[From Rick Marken (990430.1400)]
i.kurtzer (990430.1530)--

> Since we are asking questions. If A wants to keep the knot of
> her rubber band above a quarter and you pull on the other end
> of the rubber band and A moves her end by a certain amount that
> you wanted to see--maybe it traces out "I'm a silly girl"--are
> you coercing her?

I can't tell based on just this. Remember, to me, coercion is
control of behavior by force or the credible threat thereof.
In this scenario I am certainly controlling behavior (making
the girl trace out "I'm a silly girl")

I would contend you are not controlling her behavior within the PCT
sense of behavior as written by yourself in many publications such as
Behavior in the First Degree.

i.

16

[From Rick Marken (990430.1550)]

Me:

Now you watch me tell both A and B to go sit in their
rooms and read Chaucer. You see both A and B instantly do
what they are told. How do you determine that I am coercing
B and not coercing A?

isaac:

I would first have to confirm that A and B are doing what they
are told. This is rarely obvious. If it turns out so, then I
would say I still don't know because I posit that coersion
requires a difference in loop gain and references, and I don't
know what their references are---or even what is yours--and
what is your and their loop gain for those references. Intention
is not sufficient. A lil' bug wishing to coerce me to run for
president and utterly failing is a bug that has not coerced me.

Are you saying that you can't determine whether I am coercing
A or B (or both or neither)?

Also, could you tell me whether the following is a satisfactory
description of what you think coercion is:

"Coercion occurs when one person (coercer) makes another person
(coercee) do what s/he (coercee) doesn't want to do"

If this isn't right could you give me one that sounds right.

Thanks

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

17

[From Rick Marken (990430.1810)]

Me:

I can't tell based on just this. Remember, to me, coercion is
control of behavior by force or the credible threat thereof.
In this scenario I am certainly controlling behavior (making
the girl trace out "I'm a silly girl")

i.kurtzer (990430.1400) --

I would contend you are not controlling her behavior within
the PCT sense of behavior as written by yourself in many
publications such as Behavior in the First Degree.

I'm afraid I am controlling her behavior. As long as she controls
the position of the knot I can control the position of her hand.
She doesn't even have to keep the knot on the quarter (or whatever
you have desiggnated as the "target"); her reference for the
position of the knot can change. You can also add disturbances
to the position of her hand. It doesn't matter. As long as she is
controlling knot position she is part of the feedback connection
between my actions and the variable I am controlling (the position
of her hand). That's what the "Control of Behavior" demo at

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html

shows (in one, rather than two dimensions; but the principle is
the same).

I didn't want to believe it either, Isaac. But Bruce Abbott
said it was so and I convinced myself that Bruce was right
by building the "Control of Behavior" demo. I'm afraid it's
true; you can control another person's actions by disturbing
the variable controlled by those actions -- really.

Of course, once the girl stops controlling knot position you can
no longer control the position of her hand -- at least, you
can't do it by moving your end of the rubber band. That's why I
said that you can't tell whether or not the controller is being
coercive when s/he controls the girl's behavior in the "rubber band"
control situation. If the controller _is_ not coercive then s/he
will just be amused when s/he can no longer control the girl's
finger; if, however, the controller _is_ coercive s/he will
immediately resort to physical force in order to get the girl's
finger to move as desired.

Does this make sense?

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

18

i.kurtzer (990430.2200)

[From Rick Marken (990430.1810)]

Me:

> I can't tell based on just this. Remember, to me, coercion is
> control of behavior by force or the credible threat thereof.
> In this scenario I am certainly controlling behavior (making
> the girl trace out "I'm a silly girl")

i.kurtzer (990430.1400) --

> I would contend you are not controlling her behavior within
> the PCT sense of behavior as written by yourself in many
> publications such as Behavior in the First Degree.

I'm afraid I am controlling her behavior.

You are controlling her output. The difference between one's actions
and what someone is doing is the difference that is the central point of
PCT. To call her output, behavior, is to blur the line you have have
actively drawn. It is in my opinion a very good line.The rest of your
argument derives from this conflation.

As long as she controls
the position of the knot I can control the position of her hand.

Which is not her behavior. Suprisingly, it is yours because it is
something you are then controlling.

I didn't want to believe it either, Isaac. But Bruce Abbott
said it was so and I convinced myself that Bruce was right
by building the "Control of Behavior" demo. I'm afraid it's
true; you can control another person's actions by disturbing
the variable controlled by those actions -- really.

You didn't have to build those demos. We already knew this.

The other side of the coin is interesting as well. Like when someone
becomes privy to this fact and decides to play the game right back and
make the "controller's" hand follow an equally abritrary path...at least
for a while. Then all bets are off. Skinner called it
counter-control. And such an analysis with human subjects was written
about in "Control or to be controlled" by Tom Bourbon. If anyone is
interested I could find a copy.

i.

19

[From Bill Powers (990501.0325 MDT)]

i.kurtzer (990430.1400)

[From Rick Marken (990430.1400)]
i.kurtzer (990430.1530)--

I can't tell based on just this. Remember, to me, coercion is
control of behavior by force or the credible threat thereof.
In this scenario I am certainly controlling behavior (making
the girl trace out "I'm a silly girl")

I would contend you are not controlling her behavior within the PCT
sense of behavior as written by yourself in many publications such as
Behavior in the First Degree.

You are controlling v if you vary your actions so as to keep v in a
preselected state. Of course you are not controlling the other person's
controlled quantity; only the action by which the other person is
maintaining control. As the other person (successfully) prevents you from
moving the knot away from the quarter, you simultaneously and independently
control the other person's behavior -- that is, the position of that
person's end of the rubber bands.

There is no need to apply overwhelming physical force to do this, so there
is no coercion. You can control the other person's _output quantity_ with
no resistance from the other person. Resistance will occur only if you try
to control the other person's _input quantity_. If you wanted to move the
knot off the quarter, you would have to apply your disturbance through a
piece of string, instead of a rubber band, as Gary Cziko demonstrated so
clearly at a CSG meeting.

If you stick with the key-word definitions of PCT, there is no need to
"contend" anything. You can work out the right answer. "Behavior" is not a
key word in PCT; it's an ambiguous term that can refer either to the
action, qo, or to the input quantity, qi. That's why it's useless in a
technical discussion.

Best,

Bill P.

20

[From Bill Powers (990501.0342 MDT)]

Rick Marken (990430.1810)]

I'm afraid I am controlling her behavior. As long as she controls
the position of the knot I can control the position of her hand.

Wrong. Or Right, depending on what you mean by "behavior." Are you talking
about her knot-positioning behavior, or her rubber-band-pulling behavior?
You are controlling her rubber-band-pulling behavior, but her
knot-positioning behavior is still under her control, no;t yours, as long
as you apply your forces through a rubber band just like hers. Would you
agree that the word behavior is useless?

Best,

Bill P.